The Political Lebenswelt (Lifeworld of a Leader)

ni kapurit na laman

Socially speaking, we all need some guidance for us to move, to act, and to play, that cause us to have the intention of protecting our rights -- life, freedom, and property. At the end of the day , all of us have decided to build a society. Ergo, reasons for convening a political organization arised. Without a question, we are all deemed to live social. We are all victims and conspirators of dependence, but on the contrary, we always seek for freedom.

It is natural to be dependent, among mammals, we humans are the longest to be nursed. Legally, here in the Philippines, your nursing period is until the coming of age, at 18. Socially, there are people who are still nursed even if they are already married and should be nursing they're own children, while some others were already abandoned as soon as they were born. With this line of argumentation, I want to point that there is a necessity of dependency, but on the other hand, independence is still necessary but the full realization of the latter, in this material world where we live, is almost  impossible (and I'm still hopeful that it is possible).

The basic unit of a society is family -- very elementary indeed. But this is the very place where we learn how to play politics on its first stage. We learn to socialize, to lead our sibling, and to be dependent on people of authority, our parents. The family is there to protect you because harm is everywhere. Unfamiliar people might take your life, liberty, and property, and this people, we call family, are the first agent to protect these rights.

In this post-modern world, what is the right right? Everything is relative, what is right for you might be wrong for others, and what is wrong for you might be right for others. Now, why should we question what really the TRUTH is if at the end of the day we all believe on different things, different ideologies?

The right wing will question the leftist, and the leftist will do the same. Both are AIMING for GOOD, but have different standards of what is GOOD. Hence, we have different ways of achieving it. Both wants harmony, but their political differences mean chaos -- me the right, you're the wrong. If these differences were unsettled, the worst we could expect is death - Physical Death or Moral Death. From these, who we should believe? How we should live in harmony? How can we be dependent on these people aspiring to take lead on us? What are the standards of a good leader?

I really hope that we could settle our difference in a better way. If people just know deeply what listening is. Anyhow, the BEST LEADER KNOWS NO IDEOLOGY BUT LOVE. But this love is not the romantic love. A love beyond the love we usually enjoy. A Meta-love indeed. This love must be selfless and unconditional (equivalent to Mozi's jiān ài). And learning to listen is the first rule of love according to a classic saying. If we all know how to listen and respect each others opinion, this lebenswelt, or lifeworld, might be better.

 A good leader knows no politics of crying. They play the game fair and square, and on the other hand, will never cry that they were cheated or in a disadvantage. If you felt that way, then you should have never intended to lead. This should be expected on this Stage. If this is so, this is a sign of a leader of poor quality. But if you are a good family leader who does his filial  responsibilities, and a good lover who knows respect and mutual understanding, then I can assure you that you are a Great Leader, a leader who speaks Fair Dinkum. To all people who aspire to be our leaders, KUDOS!!!